Bruce Cockburn-revisited
February 6, 2008
Now that ‘The Sweet Dropper’ has more readers than I can count on one hand, it’s time to give props to Canadian singer-songwriter Bruce Cockburn [pronounced co-burn with a long "o"], whose music has been a big part of my life since I first heard If I Had a Rocket Launcher in Paul Case’s car in the parking lot of Christ United Methodist Church in Jackson, MS in 1984. Miss Judy and I saw Bruce in concert at Holy Communion Episcopal Church in Memphis back in June–best concert I’ve attended since…well, since Paul Case and I saw Bruce at the Moonshadow in Atlanta in 1986!
Cockburn, whose guitar skills make amateurs like myself contemplate smashing their fingers with a hammer, is held in highest regard in his “home and native land” for his career of more than 40 years. He has released 29 albums, is a member of the Canadian Music Hall of Fame, and is truly ‘a musician’s musician.’
Cockburn gained initial recognition in 1969 as a last-minute replacement for Neil Young as headliner at the Mariposa Folk Festival. His first solo album was recorded the following year. For the next decade, Cockburn developed a sound that combined folk, rock and jazz, and also distinguished himself with lyrics expressing a new-found Christian faith and a gentle introspection. This phase of his career peaked with 1979′s Dancing In the Dragon’s Jaws, which featured his first U.S. Top 40 hit, “Wondering Where the Lions Are.”
On 1980′s Humans–which I and many other fans consider one of his best–Cockburn emerges as a keen observer of the global scene and an eloquent commentator on his own private struggles. Humans resonates with world-beat influences and darker, more politically aware lyrics. Throughout the ’80s his music took on a more electric sound and gave eloquent voice to angry left-wing politics.
From the mid-’90s to the present Cockburn’s music has gathered up the earlier phases of
his career and mellowed them into a spiritually sensitive, politically astute, and refreshingly honest body of work–now more jazz and acoustic than the electric “protest” music of the ’80s. His lyrics are more thought-provoking than ever, and his musicianship still amazes.
If you want to sample Cockburn’s music, let me offer a few recommendations:
- Joy Will Find a Way [1975] and In the Falling Dark [1976-many of the tracks chronicle his emerging Christian faith]
- Dancing in the Dragon’s Jaws [1979-the peak of Cockburn's folk/acoustic period],
- Humans [1980-brilliant transition album from contemplative Cockburn to angry Cockburn],
- Stealing Fire [1984-peak of Cockburn's politically-charged electric sound]
- Christmas [1993-if I can keep only one CD of Christmas music, I'd keep this one!],
- The Charity of the Night [1997] and Breakfast in New Orleans, Dinner in Timbuktu [1999-both of which exhibit his full artistic and emotional range],
- Speechless [2005 compilation of his best instrumental pieces--a must for guitar enthusiasts],
- Life Short Call Now [2006-his most recent release].
All of these are available from Amazon and most from iTunes.
Martin Luther and Christmas
December 26, 2007
Dr. Philip Ryken, senior minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has written about Martin Luther’s contribution to Christmas hymnody on Reformation21.
To God who sent his only Son
Be glory, laud, and honor done.
Let all the choir of heaven rejoice,
The new ring in with heart and voice.
Better for nothing than for a nuisance
December 21, 2007
Here’s a Sweet Dropper Christmas tradition [which, being interpreted, means, 'I posted this last Christmas and can't come up with anything better.']
It’s Friday. There must be another Christmas party to attend–I hosted one last night. There must be another little gift to buy. Who’s going to be so favoured as to receive one of my signature fruitcakes? C.S. Lewis wrote a short essay for the December 1957 edition of the publication, Twentieth Century. Under the heading, ‘What Christmas Means to Me,’ Lewis launches a scathing attack on the ‘commercial racket’ that overwhelms the season–NOT because it isn’t ‘religious,’ but because it drains our energies and undermines the merry-making, and hospitality that ought to characterize the season:
The interchange of presents was a very small ingredient in the older English festivity. Mr. Pickwick took a cod with him to Dingley Dell; the reformed Scrooge ordered a turkey for his clerk; lovers sent love gifts; toys and fruit were given to children. But the idea that not only all friends but even all acquaintances should give one another presents, or at least send one another cards, is quite modern and has been forced upon us by the shopkeepers. Neither of these circumstances is in itself a reason for condemning it. I condemn it on the following grounds.
1. It gives on the whole much more pain than pleasure. You have only to stay over Christmas with a family who seriously try to ‘keep’ it [in the commerical sense] in order to see that the thing is a nightmare. Long before December 25th everyone is worn out—physically worn out by weeks of daily struggle in overcrowded shops, mentally worn out by the effort to remember all the right recipients and to think out suitable gifts for them. They are in no trim for merry-making; much less (if they should want to) to take part in a religious act. They look far more as if there had been a long illness in the house.
2. Most of it is involuntary. The modern rule is that anyone can force you to give him a present by sending you a quite unprovoked present of his own. It is almost a blackmail. Who has not heard the wail of despair, and indeed of resentment, when, at the last moment, just as everyone hoped that the nuisance was over for one more year, the unwanted gift from Mrs. Busy (whom we hardly remember) flops unwelcomed through the letter-box, and back to the dreadful shops one of us has to go?
3. Things are given as presents which no mortal ever bought for himself—gaudy and useless gadgets, ‘novelties’ because no one was ever fool enough to make their like before. Have we really no better use for materials and for human skill and time than to spend them on all this rubbish?
4. The nuisance. For after all, during the racket we still have all our ordinary and necessary shopping to do, and the racket trebles the labour of it. We are told that the whole dreary business must go on because it is good for trade. It is in fact merely one annual symptom of that lunatic condition of our country, and indeed of the world, in which everyone lives by persuading everyone else to buy things. I don’t know the way out. But can it really be my duty to buy and receive masses of junk every winter just to help the shopkeepers? If the worst comes to the worst I’d sooner give them money for nothing and write it off as a charity. For nothing? Why, better for nothing than for a nuisance.
From C.S. Lewis, “What Christmas Means to Me,” in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 304-305.
While we in the means are found
October 24, 2007
I judge a hymnal on “The Newton Scale.” When I look at an unfamiliar hymnal, the first thing I do is thumb my way to the index to see how many (and which) hymns by John Newton are contained therein. It’s a pretty good indicator of the kind of piety the editors want to encourage. Newton’s hymns are, well, let me borrow the words of Kenny Bania, “That’s gold, Jerry! Gold!” Among Newton’s best are:
- Amazing Grace
- Let Us Love and Sing and Wonder
- Day of Judgment! Day of Wonders!
- How Sweet the Name of Jesus Sounds
- Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken
- Approach My Soul, the Mercy Seat
- Safely Through Another Week
The old Gadsby Hymnal has many Newton compositions. Certainly, some of these are not of the same calibre as the aforementioned classics (Does anyone remember Harlem Shuffle by the Rolling Stones, for example?). But below is a mighty good one from Newton. It is a prayer for the Spirit’s power to be unleashed in the ordinary means of grace, with 1 Corinthians 12:6-11 and 1:5 as a heading:
1 O thou, at whose almighty word
The glorious light from darkness sprung,
Thy quickening influence afford,
And clothe with power the preacher’s tongue.
2 ‘Tis thine to teach him how to speak;
‘Tis thine to give the hearing ear;
‘Tis thine the stubborn heart to break
And make the careless sinner fear.
3 ‘Tis also thine, Almighty Lord,
To cheer the poor, desponding heart;
To speak the soul-reviving word
And bid the mourner’s fears depart.
4 Thus, while we in the means are found,
We still on thee alone depend
To make the gospel’s joyful sound
Effectual to the promised end.
Thank you, John Newton.
Near enough to heal, strong enough to save
May 30, 2007
What question could a kind, gentle American seminary professor ask to get himself run 
out of the famous Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem? Let me suggest you to take few minutes to read a short piece by Dr. Reggie Kidd, Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, entitled ‘The Deity of Jesus–So What?’ , and you will find more than an interesting encounter with Islam, but a rich discussion of the beauty, sweetness and necessity of eternal God taking on human flesh. Dr. Kidd (he would prefer you call him Reggie–with a hard ‘g’) reflects on the question, ‘What difference does it make that Jesus is not just man (though certainly that), but also God?’ Or to personalize the question a bit: ‘What has Jesus done for us that no human could do?’
Tomb of Herod the Great found?
May 8, 2007
According to Haaretz.com, archaeologists from Hebrew University in Jerusalem have discovered the tomb site of Herod the Great–the Herod whom Rome allowed to ‘rule’ the province of Judaea from 74 BC to ~4 BC. This is the same Herod who appears in Matthew and Luke’s narratives of the birth of Jesus and instigator of the infant massacre at Bethlehem. Herod the Great is also famous for his ambitious expansion of the Temple in Jerusalem.
As for the tomb discovery, Professor Ehud Netzer has been digging since 1972 around a site known as Herodium, about 7 miles outside of Jerusalem and destroyed by the Romans in AD 71, acting on the belief that first-century Jewish historian Josephus was reliable in his detailed account of the funeral and burial of Herod. But it was not until this spring that his team found the ruins of a distinctively lavish (albeit empty) sarcophagus at Herodium.
Two additional interesting notes about Herod the Great:
- His ancestors were Edomites and not Jews. In his grandfather’s time, the Maccabeans conquered Idumea (home of the remnant of the Edomites) and compelled them to convert to Judaism. Although Herod surely would have seen himself as Jewish, conservative, observant Jews in his day would likely have viewed him as more Hellenistic than Jewish.
- You might scratch your head at the fact that Herod’s death is listed as ~4 BC. But wasn’t Jesus born in 1 AD? Not so fast, my friend. Our current numbering system for years was adopted in Western Europe in 8th century and was based on work by a 6th century monk named Dionysus Exiguus, who lived in Rome. Dionysus miscalculated a few things, and our best guesses are that Jesus was born between 6 BC and 4 BC.
Better for nothing than for a nuisance
December 14, 2006
It’s Wednesday. There must be another Christmas party to attend. There must be another little gift to buy. Who’s going to be so favoured as to receive one of my signature fruitcakes? I need to credit fellow-laborer for the gospel Brad Mercer of First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, Mississippi, for bringing out the following C.S. Lewis excerpt from his vast and varied studies. It comes from a short essay Lewis wrote for the December 1957 edition of the publication, Twentieth Century. Under the heading, ‘What Christmas Means to Me,’ Lewis launches a scathing attack on the ‘commercial racket’ that overwhelms and undermines the celebration, merry-making, and hospitality that characterize the season.
From C.S. Lewis’ “What Christmas Means to Me”:
The interchange of presents was a very small ingredient in the older English festivity. Mr. Pickwick took a cod with him to Dingley Dell; the reformed Scrooge ordered a turkey for his clerk; lovers sent love gifts; toys and fruit were given to children. But the idea that not only all friends but even all acquaintances should give one another presents, or at least send one another cards, is quite modern and has been forced upon us by the shopkeepers. Neither of these circumstances is in itself a reason for condemning it. I condemn it on the following grounds.
1. It gives on the whole much more pain than pleasure. You have only to stay over Christmas with a family who seriously try to ‘keep’ it [in the commerical sense] in order to see that the thing is a nightmare. Long before December 25th everyone is worn out—physically worn out by weeks of daily struggle in overcrowded shops, mentally worn out by the effort to remember all the right recipients and to think out suitable gifts for them. They are in no trim for merry-making; much less (if they should want to) to take part in a religious act. They look far more as if there had been a long illness in the house.
2. Most of it is involuntary. The modern rule is that anyone can force you to give him a present by sending you a quite unprovoked present of his own. It is almost a blackmail. Who has not heard the wail of despair, and indeed of resentment, when, at the last moment, just as everyone hoped that the nuisance was over for one more year, the unwanted gift from Mrs. Busy (whom we hardly remember) flops unwelcomed through the letter-box, and back to the dreadful shops one of us has to go?
3. Things are given as presents which no mortal ever bought for himself—gaudy and useless gadgets, ‘novelties’ because no one was ever fool enough to make their like before. Have we really no better use for materials and for human skill and time than to spend them on all this rubbish?
4. The nuisance. For after all, during the racket we still have all our ordinary and necessary shopping to do, and the racket trebles the labour of it. We are told that the whole dreary business must go on because it is good for trade. It is in fact merely one annual symptom of that lunatic condition of our country, and indeed of the world, in which everyone lives by persuading everyone else to buy things. I don’t know the way out. But can it really be my duty to buy and receive masses of junk every winter just to help the shopkeepers? If the worst comes to the worst I’d sooner give them money for nothing and write it off as a charity. For nothing? Why, better for nothing than for a nuisance.
From C.S. Lewis, “What Christmas Means to Me,” in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 304-305.
